Tech Sharing Among Human Players

[unmerged(14715)]

How do you trade tech ingame? I find that with the game running when I scroll down the diplomacy options to "share research" and click on it, it instantly jumps to the top of the menu and I end up influencing my ally instead. Same goes for send expeditionary forces and request military access - can't scroll down without pausing repeatedly.

 

[MAC]

Hm, maybe because it's too laggy ? Trading works very well for me without pausing, but we usually pause every 3 months for tech share anyways...

About NChina: Well, it's hard to simulate the Chinese war since the Japanese did not manage to conquer whole China but in HOI China is usually overrun. But so is France. So in fact pretty often the France player switches to Canada and the China player to Australia for example, if their country gets annexed...

That spoken I'd rather see 4 Axis players vs 3 Allies (UK USA FRA/CAN) and the USSR.

Just wondering which Axis country would be fun to play... Finland maybe?

Or have a "neutral" Spain?
Or even "fight" for Spain with all you got and if Rep Spain wins Spain = Allies and if not Spain = Axis?

 

[unmerged(13034)]

Originally posted by Holistic_Cookie

Nat China is rendered unplayable with limited tech share. With 80 IC and 10 dissent...plus 15 if you dont accept the Xi'an incident and 20 dissent if u DOW Sinkiang.....thats alot of dissent with 80IC.......

A competent Chinese player should be able to annex Communist China before the Xi'an incident can happen. At least I've done it myself.

 

[Diefledermas]

The last thread got hi-jacked so here is a breakdown of the argument for limited tech sharing. If you agree with the below points the next thing to figure out is exactly what the tech limiting "house rules" should be

The problem with tech sharing is that tech has a drastic effect on the fighting performance of units. Anyone who has played SP knows that. If there is unlimited tech sharing, USSR can get as good or better tech than Germany. If there is only tech sharing within an alliance, Japanese and Italian troops will be as good as German troops, which would be drastically better than the Soviet Union. Some kind of middle ground has to be reached, and I am not sure where it lies.

"coordinated" research isn't all that realistic or "in the spirit" of the game.

As for unrestricted trading to "minor nation" partners in the Commonwealth this allows for these nations to become "laundries" between the Allies. Without getting into how, the point of tech restrictions is to prevent explotation of the (lax) diplomatic cost for sharing

Tech sharing becomes an arms races and saps DIP for other things which really add to the game. Also, Italian forces WERE less capable than the Germans, the Americans needed time to build up their technology and even then certain area never matched the Germans. The Russian tanks were on par with the Germans (and better) but they lacked in other areas. With unlimited tech sharing (in theory) the Russians would end up with a better navy than the Japanese, and that's just silly

Because each country is balanced to have its certain strengths and weaknesses. Germany's strength is org and tech, USSR's in manpower and space, Italy is its starting army, etc. Allowing unlimited tech trades alters the balance between countries. Italy is not meant to have as good an army as Germany, and if everyone else is sharing, the USSR will be in trouble.

Assuming that some countries SHOULD have a technological advantage over others (and lets assume for the moment that this is a correct assumption): How do players assure that this "intended" game differentiator is maintained?

You are 100 percent off the mark of why I do not like unlimited tech sharing. My post about USSR being in trouble with Italy and Japan having the same tech as Germany was why I don't like unlimited tech sharing only among allies. As Russia, I don't like unlimited tech sharing because IT IS TOO EASY. I end up with troops that are twice as good as Germany, plus my army is at least twice the size.

Anyway, the goal of tech sharing (at least in the group we play, me, fledermas, biggles) is to have minors remain technologically worse, but not to absurd extent, when USA or USSR are using turbojet fighters and Italy is using pre-war ones.

agree with the posts that tech sharing also deviates from the historical nature of the game. Japan should not have tanks as advanced as Germany. But even if we adopted Odin's view that this is a non-historical sim, tech sharing is still problematic because it means that players dont have to participate as much in the strategic decisionmaking associated with R&D. Japan should have to face the strategic decision...do I keep improving my already decent naval techs or do I try to boost my poor land techs. As things stand now, Japan can have her cake and eat it too.

As usual, you raise excellent points. Let's assume for the moment that I adopt your view that HoI is not a historical sim (I think there is great merit to this view). Still of concern, however, is basic game design (things like how much units costs, how fast they move, how much damage they inflict, etc). Whether these game designs are based on history or not is irrelevant because we've adopted your view that HoI is not a historical sim. Part of the ahistorical game design is R&D. My beef with tech trading is that it largely removes the strategic decisionmaking that goes along with R&D. Players simply divide up the tech tree. This complaint exists whether you seek to base your R&D model on history or on merely playability.

I have to respectfully disagree, it isn't universal. This isn't a free-for-all game. The countries do not all start out on the same level playing field. Not everyone gets 3 DI a month, has 200 IC's, has 2 human allies, etc. All of the variables are, well, variable. Different countries benefit at different levels from tech sharing. This can have the effect of wildly throwing off game balance, depending on the countries that are involved in the game.

Does because the rule is universal doesn't mean that the effect is the same on every human. If you made a rule that there would be no more penalty on amphib attacks, it would help out USA a lot, but not USSR at all. Or if you doubled the effect of cold weather on attackers, it would probably hurt Germany and help USSR. Just because everyone can do it does not make it balanced.

As someone pointed out earlier, the Commonweath nations were organized to "fold in" the British command structure and there is a very good arguement for tech sharing BY the UK to her Commonwealth partners. BUT, this is purely a one way deal, if you want to be historical. And, if executed that way would probably maintain game balance just fine. As far as US-UK tech sharing, historically they were doing there own designs and not coorperating too much in the tech department. If anything, should be sending exp. forces to the UK en masse to represent US lend-lease directives. As for the USSR and the Allies. Tech sharing? Eh... no, not historical at all.

You make some really good points, but I think the major issue is tech sharing before the war starts. In real life, nobody was sure who their allies were and who were their enemies, so they didnt tech share very much. In the game, on Jan 1, 1936 everyone knows basically how the alliances are going to work out, so the tech starts flowing freely, an issue the game was not balanced for.

Playing as the Axis against competent opponents is difficult. One of the reasons is that the Axis (at least Germany) is not ready to fight at the beginning of 36 BUT if you wait to long then Allies will simply overwhelm you with production. Once the USA is in the game then you are fighting against time expotentionally. My point? You have a window of opportunity and then you're done. How this effects the tech debate is one of the things Germany needs to win is a tech advantage because a level tech playing field = defeat.

 

[unmerged(13894)]

Maybe a solution would be to not allow any trading of Tech Theories ('golds') and limited trading of Applications ('grays), perhaps 1 trade quarterly. This would hopefully slow unbalancing tech trades, while allowing some historical situations (the American P-51 Mustang was a low-level multirole fighter until the Brits gave them the design for the Merlin engine)
(Commonwealth forces in Europe used American tanks with British guns-Sherman Firefly)
(Not sure if it's a coincidence, but the Me262 and J8M Shusui look a lot alike. I think there's a twin of the Me163 rocket fighter, but I'm not sure)
(Japanese soldiers in Battlefield 1942 use Kar98 rifles and MP43 assault rifles)

Point is, it's fun in a 'what-if' kind of way to give minor tech away, and if done sparingly, shouldn't unbalance things much. The 'golds', however, represent leading-edge ideas and I would think that they should be kept secret. I think the game is setup so that each team has a more or less equal chance of winning (remember, winning means staying alive and your alliance having more points than any other). So Italy doesn't need to conquer South America to win the game; just stay alive and contribute to an Axis win.
Each side has certain advantages and disadvantages, so when you have unlimited trading, you change the designed odds for victory, which are roughly even, to heavily favor the side with the most countries researching tech.

Having said that, If you want to have a game where anyone can do anything, that could be fun too, as countries do stuff their historical counterparts never dreamed of. But if you have unlimited tech trading, as soon as the alliances are formed, you will know who is going to win. Not my cup of tea. (although I would still have SOME fun)

 

[GLENN]

Limited Tech Sharing

I do believe that limted tech sharing hurts the Axis.
The Common Wealth gets all sorts of free tech. USA has all the IC's in the world to research the hard stuff.

The 2 to 1 proposal for tech share might be more reasonable.

If you want to be more historical go for only sharing minor techs.

This might be the best way to play the game.

I think one thing to consider might be the fact; allowing the world to be half conqoured by 1937.

If this happens, how else can the allies combat the Axis without the allowance of massive tech trades. The allies have the advantage when a limit is imposed, due to the ai tech sharing and IC resources of of the USA.
This rule gives them the ability to come back and win.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Originally posted by RodentDung
How do you trade tech ingame? I find that with the game running when I scroll down the diplomacy options to "share research" and click on it, it instantly jumps to the top of the menu and I end up influencing my ally instead. Same goes for send expeditionary forces and request military access - can't scroll down without pausing repeatedly.

yea very irritating it happens at every 0:00 hr (i.e the comp resets the diplomatic screen back to the top) - so if you have the game set to fast you cannot give tech unless you pause or are very fast with your mouse.

 

[MAC]

Heh, playing on Fast in HOI MP?
Now that seems to be a good con - you sure you guys dont fall behind several days?

Would explain what happens - since you re behind the action you try to perform won't work.

Same for upgrading Provinces or merging Units.

Try it with slower speed (normal or below) and it should work unless you still lag...

 

[MAC]

Hm, yes 2 techs for axis and only 1 for allies every 3 month.
No nuclear techs.
That "no Theories"-thingie might really be worth consideration as well...

But also tech sharing to minors is an issue that needs to be covered by a house rule...

 

[Diefledermas]

This "allied trading" maximum is an interesting idea. What are you suggesting? A certain number of trades per month/quarter/year? And how would you deal with the USSR and "neutrals" such as the USA or pre-Axis Italy/Japan

 

[MAC]

Well, from the gaming experience I'd suggest USA and USSR should not participate in sharing unless they are at war...

 

[Diefledermas]

Well, from the gaming experience I'd suggest USA and USSR should not participate in sharing unless they are at war...

Well, that's a different (part) of the discussion - I'm more curious about your thoughts on (pre) war trading. Or maybe I should say (if) neutral trading is allowed how would it be handled? Otherwise the Soviets are going to be totally locked out of tech sharing.

While 'm thinking of it. Here is another point re: tech sharing. I think it is important to take into account that "lend-leasing" (not the events) of equipment isn't tech sharing but is a way to get superior equipment to your allies. I'm not suggesting limiting this but it is a way to get "the tech" to your compatriots

 

[MAC]

Well, the point is indeed to keep the USSR out of tech sharing.
The USSR is pretty strong in MP and if you get a lot of techs via share the Germany quality vs Russian quantity at the beginning of the war is not existant.

The point is to balance the MP game via house rules in a way Axis actually can win, making it more interesting.

 

[Diefledermas]

The current tech share rule we are trying is ONE tech share per country per year. No other restrictions. Thoughts on this?

 

[unmerged(12221)]

How about only in alliances, no doctrines at all, rest goes?

 

[MAC]

Well, from my experience tech sharing can help to balance the game out some. The problem I see is that the Allies have an "auto share" via commonwealth minors anyways

So I am in favour of more tech shares for Axis (or 4 played Axis nations)...

I wonder to what degree Axis worked closer together research wise then Allies - anyone got some infos ?

 

[Diefledermas]

Well, from my experience tech sharing can help to balance the game out some. The problem I see is that the Allies have an "auto share" via commonwealth minors anyways

can't do much about that and it happens to the Axis powers to (get some allies/puppets on your side - especially the Scandanavian countries) - and AI trading is more "bonus" than tech share issue, but I get your point.

So I am in favour of more tech shares for Axis (or 4 played Axis nations)...

how much more? what kind of ratios are you thinking?

I wonder to what degree Axis worked closer together research wise then Allies - anyone got some infos ?

It actually talked about in THIS post quite a bit - just scroll up

 

[unmerged(13894)]

One problem I see with the situation, is that the Allies can easily circumvent any tech share rules with massive USA supply infusion. If USA supplies UK's troops, then UK receives 50+ IC, depending on size of army, I've seen as much as 200 IC. So instead of USA sharing unlimited tech instantly, they just share unlimited tech in the time it takes UK to research it. Also, any Allied player knows he has at least 2 years of no war, so can use the 'supply slider set to 0' exploit and get even more IC. This throws things out of whack, since the Axis, having to fight early, cannot afford supply infusion, or all their troops being at 0 org. So as long as USA can be the 'Welfare Office' of the Allies ('Factory of Democracy' would be different), tech share rules will not help, unless they favor the Axis, even then, may not be enough.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by varak
One problem I see with the situation, is that the Allies can easily circumvent any tech share rules with massive USA supply infusion. If USA supplies UK's troops, then UK receives 50+ IC, depending on size of army, I've seen as much as 200 IC. So instead of USA sharing unlimited tech instantly, they just share unlimited tech in the time it takes UK to research it. Also, any Allied player knows he has at least 2 years of no war, so can use the 'supply slider set to 0' exploit and get even more IC. This throws things out of whack, since the Axis, having to fight early, cannot afford supply infusion, or all their troops being at 0 org. So as long as USA can be the 'Welfare Office' of the Allies ('Factory of Democracy' would be different), tech share rules will not help, unless they favor the Axis, even then, may not be enough.

Contrary to what many people think, USA doesn't have unlimited resources, and it has to do a lot of research early, not to mention its non-existent army. Shipping supplies is very nice form of leand-lease.

There is no difference in that non-supplying exploit. Both Axis and Allies can do it (actually, its only France which can't do it, as it has to have some worthy troops in the maginot line at least)

 

[MAC]

Well, I think Axis should have 2x the amount Allies tech shares - every 2 month for Axis and 4 for Allies would be a setting I'd like to try out...